enquiry_fieldsEvery field of the Metal Roof Cost Calculator enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any. Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes what the tool returns (field metadata) and implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior by directing mutation to submit_enquiry. It does not mention errors or edge cases, but for a simple field-listing tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence packs the resource, the exact output contents, and a downstream usage instruction with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete enough for a simple metadata-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema. It covers what fields are returned and how to use them, and despite not mentioning sibling tools like enquiry_describe, the field-focused scope is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful contextual information by explaining that returned field keys are meant to be used as keys for submit_enquiry, which helps an agent understand how the no-input tool fits into the larger workflow.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as 'Every field of the Metal Roof Cost Calculator enquiry' and enumerates the exact content: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It implies a retrieval/description purpose and distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context by stating 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent how to use the field keys after fetching them. It does not explicitly contrast against enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: calculate runs the calculator, calculator_describe explains it, enquiry_describe explains the enquiry flow, enquiry_fields lists inputs, and submit_enquiry performs the submission. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Tool names mix styles: calculate and submit_enquiry use verb_noun, while calculator_describe and enquiry_describe use noun_verb, and enquiry_fields is noun_noun. The pattern is inconsistent and does not follow a single predictable convention, though the names are still descriptive.
With 5 tools covering two clear functions (calculator and enquiry), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The surface fully covers the domain: calculation with execution and description, and enquiry with explanation, field listing, and a two-step submission flow. There are no missing operations or dead ends for the stated purpose.